Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Wed, 29 September 2021 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 924FD3A0863 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 14:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WGduCm7RydvL for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 14:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd36.google.com (mail-io1-xd36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19FE43A0860 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 14:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd36.google.com with SMTP id p80so4930154iod.10 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 14:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=L5/sxGUE6WEE1zjjQVGu43ART3xCzAASOJIxpvJiLiM=; b=WAWFS9U1wX6SjkW15t4nuAcR0l3xzCYaZYNqQYvjJUiz5779cK28ImMRYkNzFHzE3i K7Mi82+8i4OoP2nYc17/Kv/gZhFYC98ttdEmWnd+To+625FrTILtJ2RIMxRg2Q80wzGn ovNHhkaMyRxgIroBZxunhAvNEWwv0bJeYZufV9W2qnr5MJM19fmPbkSb5hq+X3GX1KWp bF/gIKnvKqXw5Afl25TgG06tk14yPcxza8KZc1oBadup5sCEcZLWxVcsSzhFtBurDOOr Mv12e98OyX71m8UM1j2gxRWiKKDMBPvohklADnI7PUzlwxNJEnD1TxhjK1DoNhAHPo/j GyUA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=L5/sxGUE6WEE1zjjQVGu43ART3xCzAASOJIxpvJiLiM=; b=TJH7lhzKQKScQpytraIp19sD44OW0qyRuBpawWpwQ3ynNmyHiqlfMTVzEAIKvKViuq CpE+q7A3mCqMhNxqXdeJ4qNL9zgT7tvg6PVUW2xrUgk4UDVQYVGeuoZUkjXUnbbkRAgz VceAIc4iakJkHBw05xz382tsBicBQVmj3ZNiRqXN1HD+NPEPHiez28msHDXscL5CaK04 PZqlj3UK2xFUheyTfzefpqcintDOUiSoB08tjNUFMR7F91ZGqYw55ya8kwkGh3vSJ1d+ fweiEj4Oh6pmB/86D7aFdychbmTS8MGE7/fl+IazSEN7/+Bn6Ks8zbK4eegKAbJp0un8 kJOA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532EBx9VjF7jiKkCf3G/9+EtKVpFh+6b2UhWJcJsknaE4t0Ju36Q 14SZcOb6rtNzyj+zcEdBqUHPhApp28sPWpc1V+ySJxKt
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzUeE6QOxpE1aQFbyFDURGzYD/Ar0DgjJwrTZMwF5v3gMv2zc7+MVUnhiej5q0ptYDG9bI5Daj94b6k1tlIsJE=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:8510:: with SMTP id i16mr1453989ioj.164.1632951290091; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 14:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DDA36020-90CC-471B-83AD-3D98950F1164@delong.com> <CAO42Z2wdoSdJDOB2Zo0=ZK0ecOARRsdg2nbHZGSDOhryPbLfDw@mail.gmail.com> <F2BD0A42-E9AD-45DD-999A-638E73BE1177@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr2K3Gd3JD=NJFOoH6GYgs-8ACxRQB9-sKJ7cbF4_hxsow@mail.gmail.com> <0B533C71-5DB0-410D-A5A3-7E8FD559F214@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr3NoYfNT7+OVJoCCdgdif6AHHw29tNCPttS=-NuRZKv3w@mail.gmail.com> <5FAD5290-3616-4194-B783-D473DB38A89A@delong.com> <m1mVGC6-0000HSC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <D6620D7C-8FE8-4294-8014-AB18A230C9C7@delong.com> <m1mVItl-0000GuC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <YVN6/cA6Ob3vLJQH@Space.Net> <m1mVK32-0000HpC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAO42Z2zQys6o41+m1iX1Mm88M7CaUdQa1C+uuYqxz2STfcwt_Q@mail.gmail.com> <m1mVVJG-0000J3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
In-Reply-To: <m1mVVJG-0000J3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 07:34:38 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2zNnW7VrqeqT2NagGwMnMOhCy+EfEaZPAmzGu-9AHM9hw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-10@u-1.phicoh.com>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000094dbe205cd29193f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/WdUVWCiTugqjZM4wY3TASNQuaM8>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 21:34:56 -0000

"Laughable", "sad"?

Not worth a response.


On Wed, 29 Sep 2021, 18:51 Philip Homburg, <pch-v6ops-10@u-1.phicoh.com>
wrote:

> >It's not. Lorenzo has explained why many times, including in the last week
> >or so on this mailing list.
> >
> >Lorenzo has worked out like I have worked out that reducing external
> >dependencies (such as a dependency on a central server) makes things more
> >reliable, and also makes deploying new capabilities to hosts easier and
> >quicker.
>
> I'll try to remember that this is now the reason the Android doesn't
> support DHCPv6. For me it doesn't pass the laugh test.
>
> Basically Android devs are telling operators that they are stupid. People
> who have been running big IPv4 networks for decades don't know what they
> are doing.
>
> It is trivial to run DHCP in a decentralised mode. Every CPE is effectively
> doing that. But somehow, misguided operators never figured that out and
> insist on a central database. A cause that really needs to be faught by a
> mobile handset OS.
>
> In a typical 802.1x installation, credentials are stored in a central
> server.
> So even getting access requires the central server to be up and running.
> Including all the paths between the wifi access point and that server.
> There are some hints that it would be good if every wifi host would get a
> unique /64. Likely in large environments, this prefix would come from a
> central server and there is nothing Android can do about that.
>
> But they can still show their commitment to the cause by not supporting
> DHCPv6.
>
> It seems rather sad to me.
>
> I'm a bit confused about the 'deploying new capabilities to hosts'.
> Historically, DHCP has been very flexible in picking up new features.
> The reason for that is that only the DHCP server need to serve them.
> All other components, like routers are unaware.
>
> Recently, 6man has a discussion about a generic RA option, in particular
> because it is so hard to get agreement on new RA options. Let alone
> get vendor support for options that are added.
>
> So it seems the complete opposite: if you want new capabilies quickly,
> go for DHCP. If you want to wait forever for your router vendor to support
> something new, go for RA.
>